So true. I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

mysticcat:So true. I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

mysticcat:They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

Well, you know, it could lead them to ruin their lives. Can't be too careful.

mysticcat:So true. I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients. You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork. Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Mr. Eugenides:Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients. You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork. Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Mr. Eugenides:mysticcat: So true. I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients. You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork. Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Since I'm an allergist, I never write for narcotics. But I do have a DEA number and a license to prescribe them to whomever I see fit. The hypocrisy lies in my ability to write for drugs with very high addictive potential that are commonly abused and are a common cause for lethal overdose while marijuana, which has no known LD50, is schedule 1.

A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Another fun fact: Back during the 80's, the U.S. Government actually established a medical marijuana program to see if it did indeed have any benefits. They picked a group of people with various conditions and started providing with marijuana. Eventually George H. Bush shut the program down. Last I checked there were still 5 people alive and receiving several ounces of pot from the federal government every month. According to the ones that haven't remained anonymous, the government has absolutely no interesting in learning how well it has worked out for them. I guess once they realized the results of the study weren't going to turn out the way they wanted to they decided to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "La la la I can't hear you!"

mysticcat:So true. I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

Go$h, I wonder why pain pill$ are ea$ily pre$scribed, and pot which i$ ea$ily grown at home i$n't?

MacWizard:Mr. Eugenides: Yeah, you can test marijuana with your patients. You just have to get it from the approved agencies and do the paperwork. Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

DECMATH:Neondistraction: Eventually George H. Bush shut the program down. Last I checked there were still 5 people alive and receiving several ounces of pot from the federal government every month.

Still receiving, thanks to a SHUT DOWN program? No wonder we're going broke.

Shut it down as in no longer accepting new patients for study. Officially the program no longer exists but the remaining patients are grandfathered in until they die. Presumably to keep any of the patients from filing a lawsuit or otherwise making noise and bringing the program to the attention of the general population while a president who campaigned on strongly anti-drug platform was running for re-election.

Also, I can't imagine the costs to supply 5 people with a supply of medical grade marijuana is really making a dent in the annual budget. Like a glass of water being dumped in a swimming pool.

stuhayes2010:mysticcat: So true. I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

Go$h, I wonder why pain pill$ are ea$ily pre$scribed, and pot which i$ ea$ily grown at home i$n't?

Yes, you can easily grow marijuana plants at home. You cannot easily grow anything that would be worth consuming.

You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Get your conspiracies straight, it's the tobacco and alcohol companies, not the pharmaceuticals, that are suppressing marijuana.

/probably all three really//bugs me when people talk about how easy it is to grow marijuana...yeah it is easy to grow a marijuana plant, but it is anything but easy to grow smokable marijuana.

Neondistraction:A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

js34603:Get your conspiracies straight, it's the tobacco and alcohol companies, not the pharmaceuticals, that are suppressing marijuana.

The reason pharmaceuticals don't like it is because they really couldn't have any control over it. Yes it's a biatch to grow, but you can still do it. It's the reason why they're pushing Marinol as the replacement for marijuana. Synthetic THC in pill form that they can personally regulate. Never mind that it's unbelieveably expensive and extremely hard to get the correct dose down. A person who smokes can smoke one and quit, or take another hit if need be. A person on Marinol can't control the dosage, which can actually lead to nausea and sickness the drug was originally trying to counteract.

scottydoesntknow:js34603: Get your conspiracies straight, it's the tobacco and alcohol companies, not the pharmaceuticals, that are suppressing marijuana.

The reason pharmaceuticals don't like it is because they really couldn't have any control over it. Yes it's a biatch to grow, but you can still do it. It's the reason why they're pushing Marinol as the replacement for marijuana. Synthetic THC in pill form that they can personally regulate. Never mind that it's unbelieveably expensive and extremely hard to get the correct dose down. A person who smokes can smoke one and quit, or take another hit if need be. A person on Marinol can't control the dosage, which can actually lead to nausea and sickness the drug was originally trying to counteract.

Additionally, Marinol doesn't (or at least didn't, haven't checked in a while) contain any CBDs, which are the parts which help people with some illnesses.

Mr. Eugenides:J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.

Also, how do you know that he can? All you have cited says that some people may be able to, not this one specific doctor can. Maybe the regulatory requirements are cost prohibitive. Mainly, just shut up about shiat you don't know.

machodonkeywrestler:Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.

Also, how do you know that he can? All you have cited says that some people may be able to, not this one specific doctor can. Maybe the regulatory requirements are cost prohibitive. Mainly, just shut up about shiat you don't know.

Tremolo:machodonkeywrestler: Mr. Eugenides: J. Frank Parnell: Mr. Eugenides: Also, if you're prescribing Oxy to "any schmo who says he has back pain" you should have your license stripped.

Pretty sure he said he "could", not that he does.

He also straight up lied that he was unable to do research using marijuana, he can.

Also, how do you know that he can? All you have cited says that some people may be able to, not this one specific doctor can. Maybe the regulatory requirements are cost prohibitive. Mainly, just shut up about shiat you don't know.

mysticcat:So true. I'm a physician and the fact that I can prescribe Oxycontin to any schmo off the street who says he has back pain, but we can't even do a study to assess the palliative effects of marijuana in terminal cancer, much less other diseases, is incredibly hypocritical.

They talked about it in the New England Journal this week, and, apparently, there are still some idiot physicians who think that smoking marijuana might be harmful for terminally ill patients. Huh?

Neondistraction:A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Another fun fact: Back during the 80's, the U.S. Government actually established a medical marijuana program to see if it did indeed have any benefits. They picked a group of people with various conditions and started providing with marijuana. Eventually George H. Bush shut the program down. Last I checked there were still 5 people alive and receiving several ounces of pot from the federal government every month. According to the ones that haven't remained anonymous, the government has absolutely no interesting in learning how well it has worked out for them. I guess once they realized the results of the study weren't going to turn out the way they wanted to they decided to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "La la la I can't hear you!"

Actually it's worse than that. Nixon created a commission, and hand picked the participants in the 1970's to study Marijuana, which came to the conclusion that it should be decriminalized. Of course the results were predictable:

"...The so-called "Shafer Commission" -- the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse -- whose members were appointed by then-President Richard Nixon. The Shafer Commission's (named after commission Chair, Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania) 1972 report, entitled "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," boldly proclaimed that "neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety" and recommended Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana for personal use.

...rejected by Nixon -- who refused to even read the report -- and largely ignored by Congress..."

Our marijuana laws are a result of a series of illogical, corrupt and idiotic moves by politicians stretching back for 80 years, resulting in a status quo that receives far too much ignorant protection from modern politicians and media.

untaken_name:At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

/legalize it

Haha, using logic in a creationist context. Nah, they'd just say that marijuana wasn't there at that time and was added later by the devil to tempt man and corrupt the soul. Or you know, make up whatever rationale they feel like for holding otherwise mutually exclusive stances.

js34603:You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Really??

I'll bet you have never really tried, and don't know anyone else who has... It's just a plant.

CSB: Back in college my friends and I had a spare closet that we outfitted with some ventilation and lights, a little water pump and... viola, we had some decent shiat! It doesn't take a PhD in chemistry. Nowadays, I'm actually developing a bit of a green thumb with my backyard garden, and I'd be willing to say I could do a much better job that I did back in school.

untaken_name:At least if the creationists were in charge of the drug war, we could show them this:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the whichis the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Handily, it's part of the "creation" account, so they'd have to support it.

But I think that literalist interpretation would tend to die with its adherents as they throw handfuls of nightshade berries down their throats.

SmellsLikePoo:js34603: You're about as likely to grow high quality cannabis without experience at home as you are to use a chemistry set to make Oxytocin at home.

Really??

I'll bet you have never really tried, and don't know anyone else who has... It's just a plant.

CSB: Back in college my friends and I had a spare closet that we outfitted with some ventilation and lights, a little water pump and... viola, we had some decent shiat! It doesn't take a PhD in chemistry. Nowadays, I'm actually developing a bit of a green thumb with my backyard garden, and I'd be willing to say I could do a much better job that I did back in school.

You didn't have decent shiat. You don't know what decent shiat is if you think you grew it in your closet at college.

Again, any idiot can grow a marijuana plant. No disputing that, you could toss some of the seeds from your "decent shiat" out into the yard and it will grow.

But, while it might not take a PhD to grow high quality marijuana, it does take far more knowledge and experience than people like you seem to think. Just because you can grow a marijuana plant doesn't mean you'd want to smoke it.

/also not to harsh your CSB, but I doubt that happened. Sorry, tossing "some lights" and a water pump in a closet ain't resulting in any worthwhile marijuana.//I know quite a bit about growing incidentally (from my friend...), and you clearly do not.

I'm worried about the same thing happening to "Performance Enhancing Drugs". Sports journalists are generally borderline retarded and scientifically illiterate, and are going to keep stigmatizing PEDs and demonizing high paid athletes that use them is an easy story that fill column space. I wonder at what point critical mass is going to be reached where they become so negatively stigmatized that you can't even perform real science on the potential positive effects they could have on the general populace because no one will fund/grant you on it.

js34603:You didn't have decent shiat. You don't know what decent shiat is if you think you grew it in your closet at college.

Again, any idiot can grow a marijuana plant. No disputing that, you could toss some of the seeds from your "decent shiat" out into the yard and it will grow.

But, while it might not take a PhD to grow high quality marijuana, it does take far more knowledge and experience than people like you seem to think. Just because you can grow a marijuana plant doesn't mean you'd want to smoke it.

/also not to harsh your CSB, but I doubt that happened. Sorry, tossing "some lights" and a water pump in a closet ain't resulting in any worthwhile marijuana.//I know quite a bit about growing incidentally (from my friend...), and you clearly do not.

Your ability to grow "high quality" stuff is pretty much relegated to your ability to obtain "high quality" strains. After that, a trained chimp could grow it and cultivate it. It's a hell of a lot of easier than brewing your own beer. Yeah, if you want to get a 28% THC content it might help to have a background in botany, but it's a bit like saying unless you're drinking a 50 year old Macallan in Lalique you're really don't have high quality whiskey.

There should be protests in Washington; the million man marijuana march where everyone goes to the national mall, lights up, and...Hey you know what I miss? Twinkies. A Twinkie would be farking amazing right now.

Neondistraction:A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Remember DARE? Now that was circular logic: "Don't use drugs -- because they're illegal!"

MayoSlather:There should be protests in Washington; the million man marijuana march where everyone goes to the national mall, lights up, and...Hey you know what I miss? Twinkies. A Twinkie would be farking amazing right now.

MrEricSir:Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Remember DARE? Now that was circular logic: "Don't use drugs -- because they're illegal!"

It's a bad reason, but it's not circular unless, "why are they illegal?-- because no one uses them!" was a rationale.

Seems more like an opinion his best lady friend would have. That said Sheldon Cooper, were he an actual person and not just a tv character, would benefit greatly from getting a little Walter Bishoppy with drugs.

ProfessorOhki:MrEricSir: Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Remember DARE? Now that was circular logic: "Don't use drugs -- because they're illegal!"

It's a bad reason, but it's not circular unless, "why are they illegal?-- because no one uses them!" was a rationale.

MrEricSir:ProfessorOhki: MrEricSir: Neondistraction: A classic example of circular logic. The DEA says they can't make marijuana legal (at the very least for medicinal use) because there aren't any studies that show it has any medical benefit, while the government won't allow anyone to do any research on it, because it's illegal.

Remember DARE? Now that was circular logic: "Don't use drugs -- because they're illegal!"

It's a bad reason, but it's not circular unless, "why are they illegal?-- because no one uses them!" was a rationale.